Large or Huge?

[CaesarAugustus]

Large. It is easier to maneuver your units, phalanxes don't take a ridiculously long time to destroy, and even on huge the unit sizes are still somewhat small and unrealistic, so that doesn't really count for me.

[Bootsiuv]

My specs are hurting in the game tbh...

Pentium IV 2.7 ghz
Radeon 1600x 256 MB vidoecard
756MB of RAM (ya, I know, I know)
and I know my HD speed is 5200 rpm, if that's at all relevant (which I think it is, but am not sure.

BTW, it's over 3 years old now....any 500 dollar rig of today will likely beat mine hands down, but it's sufficient for most games I own...

[Intranetusa]

Large. It is easier to maneuver your units, phalanxes don't take a ridiculously long time to destroy, and even on huge the unit sizes are still somewhat small and unrealistic, so that doesn't really count for me.

Yeh, that might be a problem...some units are overpowered on the larger unit settings

[russia almighty]

Huge and by God I wish there was a ****ing huge size . I would cream myself if CA made for uber PC's a setting that had some units as large as 1024 men .


Can you imagine the Phalanx battles with that ?

[Landwalker]

Huge and by God I wish there was a ****ing huge size . I would cream myself if CA made for uber PC's a setting that had some units as large as 1024 men .


Can you imagine the Phalanx battles with that ?

Sure can---every battle would end in a draw, because the two opposing phalanxes would never manage to kill or rout their opponent in the 45-minute time limit. Besides, can you imagine the depopulation that would wreck on your settlements?

Cheers.

[Intranetusa]

Sure can---every battle would end in a draw, because the two opposing phalanxes would never manage to kill or rout their opponent in the 45-minute time limit. Besides, can you imagine the depopulation that would wreck on your settlements?

Cheers.

Then that would actually be a DETERRENT to war...lol

[Pharnakes]

I have always played on huge because i feel its is more realistic, not because of the more men (which as people say is still wildley unrealistc) but because it makes the units much more clumsy and hard to manouver, which I feel is better, afterall, in RL a general wouldn't be able to line his untis up exactly, he would just tell them "go over there and do this, that and the other."

I feel that the greater difficulty in manuvering in huge scale is much more realistic, and the slowed down battles actualy give the AI a chance. Also, phlalanxes preform much more realistcly on huge scale, and as I am a principaly Greek player, this means alot to me.


Also the greater impact on population and economy means you actualy have to think before throwing away your levies, afterall if you keep doing that you will rapidly run out, which would have been an issue IRL, IMHO, but it is not an issue with the lower unit scales.

[Landwalker]

I have always played on huge because i feel its is more realistic, not because of the more men (which as people say is still wildley unrealistc) but because it makes the units much more clumsy and hard to manouver, which I feel is better, afterall, in RL a general wouldn't be able to line his untis up exactly, he would just tell them "go over there and do this, that and the other."

That actually gives me the terrible, terrible idea of playing a campaign using only General Cam (instead of RTS Cam), and using the "Place Groups under AI Control" function extensively, so that as the general, you can give units/groups of units general commands, and then they're largely out of your hands.

Think about how chaotic that would be... If you could manage that and still score heroic victories in battles where the odds are grossly against you, I would be most impressed.

Cheers.